Author
Topic: communism (Read 24135 times)

I'm not communist but some people I know think it's the answer. Mainstream history shows all communist regimes have been violent and result in mass death. What is the unbiased history of communism? no propaganda from either side please.

Comminism is the same thing as socialism and "democracy". It's about taking from some to give to others - to balance things out. It's wrong because it presupposes it gets to run our lives, instead of letting them evolve naturally.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

vladimir

Mainstream history shows all communist regimes have been violent and result in mass death.

What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.

There has never been communism on this planet. True communism could only be chosen and participated in, not enforced and not by majority. Democracy as currently practised is just dictatorship in another guise, as people are about to find out. The whole charade is a total farce, always has been, always will be... until everyone realises THEY have to act from a personal responsibility stance. Fat chance at the present. It looks like the blinkers will have to be torn from their faces, rather than surrendered. I have a lot of time for the suggestion that this is what the whole situation is really about... growing up.

Logged

vladimir

A primitive form of true communism was practiced in the early Christian communes of Greece and Rome. Work and meals were shared in common, as in the Essene communes. But, since these communes were trying to exist in the midst of an emerging empire based on large slave plantations and in which republicans and free farmers were ruined and murdered, they were bound to fail as economic units. After Constantinian "Christianity" came to power, these Christian communards were gradually enslaved or turned into indentured servants (gradually to become serfs). Many times, these serfs and slaves were owned by "Christian" bishops. The last slave to be freed in Western Europe was owned by a bishop.

The Founding Fathers realized that the seeds of liberty must be spread in order to flourish anywhere. True democracy could only flourish in isolated communities (mostly in the Western territories: Ohio, upstate NY, Kentucky) unless American republicanism could be spread to Europe. The American Revolution was subverted by the Federalists and failed to support the sons and daughters of liberty in Europe. As a result, the French Revolution was overthrown by Napoleon and the Directorate. Royalist England and the other royalist states of Europe were eventually able to destroy this Napoleonic perversion and set up a king in France. For all intents and purposes, the English ruling class then ruled the world. In America, those who wanted democracy moved west or joined together in unions of farmers, craftsmen, or millworkers (originally models of true democracy); here, a dynamic form of democracy which can be called "workers' democracy" emerged. This was not the so-called "democracy" of the emerging American capitalist state.

Just as the democracy of a nation must be spread or perish in isolation, union democracy that is not spread is doomed to fail. An effort to create a re-invigorated form of unionism was inaugurated prior to World War I by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other true unionists, who named their new industrial union the CIO. Later, the CIO (after a spurt of growth in the 1930s) merged with the less democratic and counterrevolutionary AFL to form the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO was eventually subverted and used as a counterrevolutionary force to undermine workers' democracy and support anti-union and anti-communist front groups in Latin America, where currently the AFL-CIO is known popularly as the "AFL-CIA". Most unionists in the U.S. belong to a member union of the AFL-CIO and are under the thumb of what real unionists call "labor aristocrats".

True democracy (liberty) will not be established until workers, and the few surviving small farmers, rediscover workers' democracy for themselves and smash the chains of official unionism, eventually bringing all workers and small farmers into "one, big union" (the watchword of the IWW). They will have also to smash the governments, here and worldwide, which have perverted the unions for their own social control and war-mongering imperialist ends. This true democracy will be indistinguishable from the ideal of true communism (if "ideal" is the right word, since real communists rely on materialist analysis rather than idealism). But a very important difference will be that advanced economic methods of production and trade will be universally available once the workers and farmers take the large industrial enterprises into their own hands to serve the interests of society, rather than the profits of a few. Enterprise and trade will then be the right of all workers as social equals under the law, until such time as law becomes unnecessary and is replaced by a common desire for each to work in the interest of all. Only in this way will enterprise be truly free and democracy flourish as the duties required by liberty are part of the conscience of every man and woman.

We have a long way to go, brothers and sisters. Time is short and the prize is great.

what is communism? the communists had a contest in Paris 1848 to answer that very question. the winners: Marx and Engels presented the communist manifesto which includes the 10 planks of communism. If that is what the communists say they are, then so be it.

Now, if you practice the communist way, the 10 planks which define them, then guess what, you are a communist. Regardless of what other moniker you put on it.

Communism=socialism=fascism=totalitarianism= whatever other ism you want to name that does not obey THOU SHALL NOT STEAL.

As far as someone posting the "communism has never existed on earth", that is complete nonsense and a strawman fallacy (among others). Communism does not work because it is a violation of natural law- economic, moral, etc. It always fails in every way, as it must because it is just one giant Ponzi scheme and we are all on the bottom layer.

To me, communism is nothing more than a mechanism to enslave the ignorant. The sheeple wait in line for rotten tomatoes, while the party elite scoff down caviar and vodka. Your friends should take a look around, America is a communist country. A failing one at that.

What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.

Umm last time I checked this post was not about Christianity but communism, I know its hard for some to keep from God hating but please try to remember to keep to the current topic instead of bashing Christians.

As for the original post your friends that think communism is an answer are a bunch of idiots... all it takes is a quick glance at history and our current problems to realise that communism nor socialism work at all.

The only government that works for any length of time based upon history is the constitutional government that we possessed at one time, with revolts every 100 - 200 years to put the government back on track.

What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.

what he said

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

There has never been communism on this planet. True communism could only be chosen and participated in, not enforced and not by majority. Democracy as currently practised is just dictatorship in another guise, as people are about to find out. The whole charade is a total farce, always has been, always will be... until everyone realises THEY have to act from a personal responsibility stance. Fat chance at the present. It looks like the blinkers will have to be torn from their faces, rather than surrendered. I have a lot of time for the suggestion that this is what the whole situation is really about... growing up.

Damn that was well said... nothing wrong with communism, as long as you don't impose it on me or anyone else.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

A primitive form of true communism was practiced in the early Christian communes of Greece and Rome. Work and meals were shared in common, as in the Essene communes. But, since these communes were trying to exist in the midst of an emerging empire based on large slave plantations and in which republicans and free farmers were ruined and murdered, they were bound to fail as economic units. After Constantinian "Christianity" came to power, these Christian communards were gradually enslaved or turned into indentured servants (gradually to become serfs). Many times, these serfs and slaves were owned by "Christian" bishops. The last slave to be freed in Western Europe was owned by a bishop.

The Founding Fathers realized that the seeds of liberty must be spread in order to flourish anywhere. True democracy could only flourish in isolated communities (mostly in the Western territories: Ohio, upstate NY, Kentucky) unless American republicanism could be spread to Europe. The American Revolution was subverted by the Federalists and failed to support the sons and daughters of liberty in Europe. As a result, the French Revolution was overthrown by Napoleon and the Directorate. Royalist England and the other royalist states of Europe were eventually able to destroy this Napoleonic perversion and set up a king in France. For all intents and purposes, the English ruling class then ruled the world. In America, those who wanted democracy moved west or joined together in unions of farmers, craftsmen, or millworkers (originally models of true democracy); here, a dynamic form of democracy which can be called "workers' democracy" emerged. This was not the so-called "democracy" of the emerging American capitalist state.

Just as the democracy of a nation must be spread or perish in isolation, union democracy that is not spread is doomed to fail. An effort to create a re-invigorated form of unionism was inaugurated prior to World War I by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other true unionists, who named their new industrial union the CIO. Later, the CIO (after a spurt of growth in the 1930s) merged with the less democratic and counterrevolutionary AFL to form the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO was eventually subverted and used as a counterrevolutionary force to undermine workers' democracy and support anti-union and anti-communist front groups in Latin America, where currently the AFL-CIO is known popularly as the "AFL-CIA". Most unionists in the U.S. belong to a member union of the AFL-CIO and are under the thumb of what real unionists call "labor aristocrats".

True democracy (liberty) will not be established until workers, and the few surviving small farmers, rediscover workers' democracy for themselves and smash the chains of official unionism, eventually bringing all workers and small farmers into "one, big union" (the watchword of the IWW). They will have also to smash the governments, here and worldwide, which have perverted the unions for their own social control and war-mongering imperialist ends. This true democracy will be indistinguishable from the ideal of true communism (if "ideal" is the right word, since real communists rely on materialist analysis rather than idealism). But a very important difference will be that advanced economic methods of production and trade will be universally available once the workers and farmers take the large industrial enterprises into their own hands to serve the interests of society, rather than the profits of a few. Enterprise and trade will then be the right of all workers as social equals under the law, until such time as law becomes unnecessary and is replaced by a common desire for each to work in the interest of all. Only in this way will enterprise be truly free and democracy flourish as the duties required by liberty are part of the conscience of every man and woman.

We have a long way to go, brothers and sisters. Time is short and the prize is great.

Why do you equate liberty with democracy when democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority? 52% could vote to kill the other 48%.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's the best idea, that we can all just take what we need and live together in harmony....

However on the average man, its unrealistic, for psycotic kingping elites bent on controlling the earth and killing nearly all humans...its ultra unrealistic.

Do you really believe that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is someone else entitled to receive the pay for the work you did? If you buy two shirts, should you be forced by the government to give one away because someone else doesn't have one? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the government makes sure that everyone is treated equally and nobody has anything more than anyone else? That is what communism/socialism is about. The government comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?"No", says the man in Washington, "it belongs to the poor!""No", says the man in the Vatican, "it belongs to God!""No", says the man in Moscow, "it belongs to everybody!"

Do you really believe that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is someone else entitled to receive the pay for the work you did? If you buy two shirts, should you be forced by the government to give one away because someone else doesn't have one? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the government makes sure that everyone is treated equally and nobody has anything more than anyone else? That is what communism/socialism is about. The government comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

This piece of writing should be secured in a museum, it's that good. Very nice summation, sir.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Damascus

OK, so why is it one choice or another when we really have a hybrid? Capitalist, individualism, and monopolies vs. socialist, collectivism, and the states absolute power. Is the only choice we have between fascism or Communism? Fabian socialist vs. the fascist?

Shouldn't we just try to keep the balance of power as stable as we can. Isn't it better to have the middle class be as wide as possible and the condensation of power and poverty as little as possible. Both Communism and Fascism concentrate the power to the few. People speak of the tyranny of majority, but what of the tyranny of the few or the minority? Dose that not exist also?

Power dose not share itself period, eventually every system you can dream up will be subverted as long as people have a desire to dominate one another. That is why many wait for a deity that has no use for anything physical we could offer. It is hoped by many that this being will be benevolent and uncorruptible and save us from ourselves. On the other hand, I have enough problems to just take one day at a time.

What about a people helping society where all is owned by all of the people all of the time and labor is shared among those who are able to do the labor but the labor is limited to say... 1 month out of a year to produce what is needed for you and others who are unable to perform the work as much as the 1 month of work will allow to be produced so that everyone can share and have all that is needed no one gets money anywhere so that no person can make gains above someone else to put them into any position above another...Those with special skills will do the work needed for those purposes also the ideal would be to uncover the inventions that were hidden from us from those who sought to hold power over the majority..The inventions that have been shelved that would provide free energy to all the people both for electricity and fuel for our cars...If money is truly the root of all evil and this eliminates the money and we can only gain through our bartering of our labor then that would take away most any rewards for crimes which would drastically lower crime rate and allow the people to get back to the living that they were intended to do and all can become mostly independent to do labors for themselves to build, plant, have time for family and friends.. I would call this a people helping people society where all who participate benefit and those who do not want to participate can just do as they wish but will not get to be a part of it so that they get to take advantage of others labors...Unless of course it is someone who is truly disabled to the point to where they can do no labor at all.. but most can do something if it is nothing but to use their brain to figure out ways to do things better which could serve to help also.. But those who are not able will be taken care of by the labors of those who will work to produce not only for themselves but enough to cover the needs of others who can't perform the labor so that all are taken care of.. With free energy and a people helping community\world we could still have most of the convieniences of today, freedom from slave labors, reduced if not eliminated crimes and a much better life for all... But I know that because of mindset that has been indoctrinated into us from birth will cause many to say...What this can not be done because we will need a government or a governering body to take care of things...To that I will say... Ok so do you want a dictator or a free society that will require you to become independent in your own right so that you do not have to answer to someone else that say's ...Hey you can't do that it's illegal... The society I speak of would be one that understands that no harm is to be done against another individual!

Damascus

Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

This isnt exactly true, our country worked quite well under the capitalism system, until it transitioned into the fascist system we have today.But a capitalist society where the government takes a hands off approach to governing the economy as long as everything is running smoothly for the consumer is the best government we can have. This system will only have problems as long as they support the society instead of taking bribes like they do now to favor the rich. i.e. through setting regulation, tax exemptions etc.. to benefit the few in order to give them an advantage so that they can drive their competition out of business.

Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

you are comparing communism with national socialism.

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor). Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild. Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism. These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them.

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic). The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years. But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor). Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild. Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism. These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them.

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic). The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years. But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)

A very clear and concise explanation of the situation this country has been maneuvered into to. This strategy was also employed in European and Asian countries before and after WWII. What was obvious to those populations is not so with the American who truly believed it could never happen here or was lied to by their leaders. The tactics may differ, but the outcome will be the same. The difference at this point being the enslavement of the entire globe.

Logged

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke

Damascus

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor). Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild. Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism. These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them.

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic). The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years. But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)

I was just trying to point out the fact that things can be seen very diferently.... If you read my other post.....

OK, so why is it one choice or another when we really have a hybrid? Capitalist, individualism, and monopolies vs. socialist, collectivism, and the states absolute power. Is the only choice we have between fascism or Communism? Fabian socialist vs. the fascist?

Shouldn't we just try to keep the balance of power as stable as we can. Isn't it better to have the middle class be as wide as possible and the condensation of power and poverty as little as possible. Both Communism and Fascism concentrate the power to the few. People speak of the tyranny of majority, but what of the tyranny of the few or the minority? Dose that not exist also?

Power dose not share itself period, eventually every system you can dream up will be subverted as long as people have a desire to dominate one another. That is why many wait for a deity that has no use for anything physical we could offer. It is hoped by many that this being will be benevolent and uncorruptible and save us from ourselves. On the other hand, I have enough problems to just take one day at a time.

Isn't this another (Hegelian Dialectic)? I believe we need both systems to maintain the balance. It is that we now have the worst of both systems not the best. This is why the middle class are being wiped out. Are you saying with no controls (Laissez Faire Capitalism) the market will balance itself out and not form monopolies? Right now don't we have socialism for the rich and free market for the poor? Isn't what Jesus describes in the millenium a good hybrid economy?

Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

Other people work for a company besides those who actually make things. There is always an administration to any company and they need to be paid, too. Management and labor cannot exist without each other. Labor may make the product, but management sells it for the best possible price. When I get a job, I negotiate the best possible deal for myself. The corporation is not obligated to pay me any more than what is contracted for. The purpose of a corporation, just like a small business that you run yourself, is to generate profit for the owners, right? If you run your own business, you can't dispute that the goal is to generate a profit for the owner (you). So why should it be different for a large corporation? Labor gets paid whatever the company values it at. If you're not happy with what you're being paid, find someone else to work for. Under communism, if you don't like what you're being paid you can't just go someplace else to work because everyone in the same position you are gets paid the same everywhere. There is no inequality. Prices and wages are kept under the thumb of the government.

Can someone define their meaning of communism? Because I can't identify with any of your meaning's on this thread. Communism isn't what Russia or China have... that's dictatorship. Communism isn't about everybody giving their labour's fruits to others, or anybody enforcing anything.

Communism is individualism in it's purest form. The idea is everyone gets the basic's of life for everyone. The equality is not about financial equality. It's about fairness and freedom.

Lets take a community (or individual) who's organised hydroponics for growth, sewerage treatment and water. They provide their own education and have free energy. They choose to help each other build houses. What's left to 'want' Or 'Buy' Where's the need for 'business' in any form?

Now there is a 'initial resource' area that has a number of interesting options including a point where you could introduce money which would have very limited buying power as there's little left to buy.

Lets look at an individual in such a situation. Gets up in the morning. He likes motor racing lets say. Look around and there are plenty of people who love tinkering, building, designing, customising vehicles. No wages and many will still do it. As in sport, people do what they love for the love of it WHEN FREE. I used to swap engines in and out of my car at 17 multiple times a week at times because I wanted a few extra BHP out of it. No money involved. There are multiple examples of organisations that spring up, again no money involved, so racing organisations would come into being. If you've ever watched snowboarders building ramps etc. you see examples of people building 'tracks'. The only issue that ever arises is 'Resources' and in this case it would be metal (perhaps) and as I've already said a discussion about resources, who owns them and how they are distributed is a very necessary one, although really the answer is obvious. Everyone owns the resources and everyone needs to be compensated by those wishing to turn a profit (or whatever) by extraction.The bottom line is this individual can get up, go racing, or do whatever his heart desires.

This is communism. The ability to do what you want (normal pursuits) whilst having your needs met by sensible planning. As I've said. We've never had it and anyone that says otherwise please tell me where it occurred.

I get the impression people into money are scared stiff by the idea they may have to do something themselves rather than paying slaves to do it for them and the only thing they mind about current inequalities is, it isn't them in charge. In other words... those desiring money are as much parasites as any other aspect of the NWO. It's 'their' system of control. You just want it to be 'YOURS'.

Communism is complicated, and easily corruptible (as are 99% of Governments). It requires alot of control, for the people and the Government, but is controlled by the Government. It needs to be accepted by the people, and embraced, not forced upon them. Its an efficient Tribal Government, and it only works in small countries, with mainly agricultural economies. More people, more control is needed, harder to implement.More resources, capital, and land, more control is needed, so its harder to implement.Regardless of if it is a creation of the Banking Cartels, or the Illuminati, there is too much control necessary for it to be a viable option, nor an appealing one to those who want to make their OWN choices in life, and not have to take care of those who choose to screw their lives up.

There is very little freedom in a Communist Society, and I want no part of it.

Logged

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

I say you are wrong there. Far less government would be involved but I suspect you are eying dictatorships again and using false labels of communist. There's either fascism or communism. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. All this 'workers' and Iron Fist stuff isn't communism and they can call it that all they want. It just isn't.

Then you get these people saying.... fruits of my labour. What in a capitalist sense? I'm guessing without capitalism most of your 'supposed talents' would be non-existant and that's more to the point. We'd all see you are actually a fairly useless individual and have little worth to society... and that's what scares people who are used to respect from their so called frnancial accumen. Its actually no skill worth bothering with. It's given credence now because it provides useful backup to the NWO scam sytem. But you won't have your fancy suits, or your fancy cars or your fancy yachts or any of these other poser requisites, that are curremntly making people 'think' they are 'a someone'.

It's easier to implement, less control and resources are needed (as I laid out previously)... No capital is needed and land shouldn't be owned anyway.

BTW when I say You I mean a generic You, not aimed at anyone specifically.

Just want to add... Community in the sense I'm using it can be an individual. We aren't talking about a communist country but rather a collection of self reliant communities. No government is required to build your own hydroponics. Its a tub, water and a few plants. Free energy can come from a simple box in your basement. It's government that stops you doing this stuff. I am the last person in the world to think we need government to do anything for us bar disappear.

this utopian ideal of communism/collectivism is philosophically flawed, that is why you cant get a straight definition of it, unlike for instance the very clear moral principles of capitalism/individualism with individual rights, voluntary contracts, mutual consent etc

communism simply replaces the individual with the collective, but by doing so it requires the abstraction (collective) to make decisions, such as the needs of individuals. when a collectivist says "from each according to ability, and to each according to need" that is a utopian ideal, but more importantly it dictates that a decision is placed upon each of us, who decides our ability? and who decides our needs? an abstraction?

i guess what would be called anarcho-collectivists, or as they probably refer to themselves, "true" communists/collectivists, would argue that we all simply take from the store of plenty, and can do any job we like. again, a very nice sounding utopian ideal, but again, who decides what needs to be made for the store of plenty, and who or what ensures there's enough for everybody? if the individual is not in charge of the means of production, if you place an abstraction in charge, that is yielding your freedom and your power as an individual.

there are two ways in which communism can exist, both are utopian, one is a completely benign government that can somehow know what is best for one individual and all individuals at the same time, and the other is without government, where human beings have a sort of collective mind that again is benign and can somehow manifest itself in a tangible way.

Let's pretend for a minute that I am a farmer. I manage to make a good living for myself and my family from my farm. I work hard and maybe employ some family members and hired hands and they all benefit from my operation of the farm. now let's say there is a revolution and the communists take over the government. Now they issue an edict that all farms are to be nationalized immediately. I have lost my farm without compensation. Is that fair? Now I, my family, and hired hands are told that we can keep working the farm, but we will only be paid a fraction of what we were being paid when the farm was run by myself, but we have no choice because if we don't the government will find someone else to work the farm for slave wages. All of our standard of living will be lowered if we stay, but we can't take our knowledge and skills to work on another farm because they are all owned by the state now and the state is paying every farm worker exactly the same. Now, maybe food prices might be lower and food products more evenly distributed across the country, but it comes at the expense of the farmers who are now forced into a lower standard of living than they enjoyed previously. It works the same if a factory is nationalized. Now, we also need to address this aspect of communism: "From each based on their ability, to each based on their need." So what this means is that if you are capable of doing more work, then the government is empowered to force that work out of you, so you end up with a situation where some people are working harder than others while not being given any additional incentive to do so. The people who are doing the least work, are unfairly benefitting from those who are doing more. This is where communism/socialism falls down because people are entitled to be the sole beneficiary of their own work. They shouldn't be forced to support anyone apart from their own family under the force of the law. If someone chooses to freely donate their time or money to a charity, that is all well and good but charity by force of arms is not charity at all but theft.

Any resource exploiter would pay compensation into a Citizens Benefit Account. Nothing is ever taken from this account. It is equally split amongst all individual's. This does away with Welfare as everyone is always on an income. The profit of tyhe exploiter achieves two things. It ups the citizens income, and the exploiter is also getting this income, and it ups the exploiter's income via over and above profit. The relationship between the citizen's and exploiter's incomes would have to be discussed but needs to hold a fixed relationship. The benefit is the success is enjoyed by everyone and achieves entrepreneur attractiveness also.

I saw an article the other day about how a mobile phone tecnology using quantum tunnelling is a supressed technology. If that was true you could maybe have an internet with no wires and perfect security, no bandwidth limits and instantaneous, anywhere, anytime. Other implications are mind boggling.

Why can't we govern ourselves using such an internet? If a community finds itself needing/desiring something why can't organisation be done online?

If everyone has a Citizen's income AND has the main basic's covered free, anyone who wants to can set up trade and there are customers who may or may not purchase your particular product.

From this sort of basis capitalism rises up again but any success by definition HAS to be enjoyed by everyone, and those producing are respected as social aiders instead of selfish accumulators and they get their cake and get to eat it too!

Obviously lots of people are into environmental issues and I'm sure self organised environmental groups would be necesssary for resource usage issues... but again if on the internet all is open and anyone can make their point. Might sound like chaos but it would settle down as each found their niche. In fact anti-environmental damage is built in as that's would attract increased resource usage costs at exploiter level.

Seems a much better approach to me. No banks, Electronic Money? Its not bad in itself and cuts out loads of unecessary faffing about with exchange, printing etc. Remember we have perfect security for this to be safe and no government to switch you off. It's not an NWO system. No wiping of credit or anything like that.

We cure people and cut the medical establishment right down and i think It will be really really down. This would happen to a lot of sections of society if things did starting getting done right. Got to have a different system.

"This is where communism/socialism falls down because people are entitled to be the sole beneficiary of their own work."

Absolutely... but land usage is a resource usage so I hope you see how it fits into the scanario above. And there will be a transition period... but this is exactly the kind of thing that could be sorted out by radical solution discussion. Everyone wants to asisst you though because by accomodating you they put their own income up.

this utopian ideal of communism/collectivism is philosophically flawed, that is why you cant get a straight definition of it, unlike for instance the very clear moral principles of capitalism/individualism with individual rights, voluntary contracts, mutual consent etc

communism simply replaces the individual with the collective, but by doing so it requires the abstraction (collective) to make decisions, such as the needs of individuals. when a collectivist says "from each according to ability, and to each according to need" that is a utopian ideal, but more importantly it dictates that a decision is placed upon each of us, who decides our ability? and who decides our needs? an abstraction?

i guess what would be called anarcho-collectivists, or as they probably refer to themselves, "true" communists/collectivists, would argue that we all simply take from the store of plenty, and can do any job we like. again, a very nice sounding utopian ideal, but again, who decides what needs to be made for the store of plenty, and who or what ensures there's enough for everybody? if the individual is not in charge of the means of production, if you place an abstraction in charge, that is yielding your freedom and your power as an individual.

there are two ways in which communism can exist, both are utopian, one is a completely benign government that can somehow know what is best for one individual and all individuals at the same time, and the other is without government, where human beings have a sort of collective mind that again is benign and can somehow manifest itself in a tangible way.

nicely done.

I would add that communism denies free market capitalism which is the ecomnomic system that this country is founded on. Pure free market capitalism allows for limited government as the individuals are able to trade goods and services directly without any need of government inefficiencies/corruptability.

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

its all very well and nice saying things like "everyone has their basic needs for free" but it is a utopian ideal, and says nothing to how. nothing is free.

another example, these "resource exploiters", i presume you mean to say that free enterprise could still exist but "profits" would be taken away. this comes down to a point made earlier, who's going to clean the toilets if no-one's going to pay them?

yes, it is noble thing to work toward a time of peace and harmony, but how you do so will ultimately shape the outcome. how can you work toward charity by promoting it through force? i dont see how you can run a collectivist society without taking from some and giving to others...